Voted “unclear question” due to the word choice of “fundamental”.
I figure that consciousness “exists” like gods and luck: whether or not it exists “objectively”/”materially”, thinking about it appears to change peoples’ observable behaviors.
I figure that matter “exists” like language: the laws of physics are what make many ideas possible to communicate between consciousnesses, and test whether that communication succeeded.
I don’t see a contradiction between explanations of the form “matter exists because we think it does” and “consciousness exists as an emergent property of matter”. Most situations which require* an explanation are distinctly better served by one or the other, so I use whichever explanation seems the better fit for the context.
Another way to describe this position would be that I have encountered situations where it’s useful to model matter as an artifact of consciousness, and situations where it’s useful to model consciousness as an artifact of matter. However, I cannot recall any situation where it was helpful to strictly rule out the possibility of either position. You can get to some interesting ideas by choosing to include or emphasize one view or the other, but I have not encountered a benefit from explicitly ruling out either.
In short, I can only tell you which explanation I think is “best” in the context of what you want the explanation for.
* and most of the time, situations which superficially seem to “require” an explanation can be reframed to not need one at all.
Voted “unclear question” due to the word choice of “fundamental”.
I figure that consciousness “exists” like gods and luck: whether or not it exists “objectively”/”materially”, thinking about it appears to change peoples’ observable behaviors.
I figure that matter “exists” like language: the laws of physics are what make many ideas possible to communicate between consciousnesses, and test whether that communication succeeded.
I don’t see a contradiction between explanations of the form “matter exists because we think it does” and “consciousness exists as an emergent property of matter”. Most situations which require
*an explanation are distinctly better served by one or the other, so I use whichever explanation seems the better fit for the context.Another way to describe this position would be that I have encountered situations where it’s useful to model matter as an artifact of consciousness, and situations where it’s useful to model consciousness as an artifact of matter. However, I cannot recall any situation where it was helpful to strictly rule out the possibility of either position. You can get to some interesting ideas by choosing to include or emphasize one view or the other, but I have not encountered a benefit from explicitly ruling out either.
In short, I can only tell you which explanation I think is “best” in the context of what you want the explanation for.
*and most of the time, situations which superficially seem to “require” an explanation can be reframed to not need one at all.Thanks!